I am not pushing MY truth, Lance. I believe that we are constantly
changing
into the image of Christ. You seem to see me and everybody else as static.
I do not. I am constantly changing and modifying the way I think,
building
upon the foundation that has been established.
Victor and you do not illustrate in any way how my theological
understanding
is off the mark. I'm not disagreeing with either of you that my
theological
understanding is off the mark. It probably is because I am not trained in
theology like you guys are. I'm asking you to explain what in my
theological understanding is off. Is it because I believe James 4 is
talking about repentance? Is it because I believe that the culture of
Luther had a sinful mindset centered on penance and indulgences as
solutions
to deal with sin? Is it because I do not think repentance and joy go hand
in hand? Is it because I believe that the church had a business going in
indulgences and the role of priests to bring forgiveness? Is it because I
believe we are to move past repentance and onto perfection? Neither of
you
are explaining what is disagreeable. You both are just shouting that I am
wrong. I'm asking how. Explain. Let's discuss this.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
I know Victor personally and well, David. In this post you simply confirm
that which I had to say re: plurality/pluralism and THE TRUTH. Even were
it
the case that YOUR truth were NOT the truth, I have every confidence, from
reading you the last couple of years, that you would not change. I've
always
'read' you as a believer. I've also 'read' you as a believer who has
constructed his own theology on some important matters. Some of your own
theology is thoroughly unbiblical and, will not stand in 'that day'. Fear
not as fire will burn it away.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Miller
To: [email protected]
Sent: February 21, 2006 14:26
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
This coming from someone who reasons with "First" and "Two" instead of
"First" and "Second" or "One" and "Two"?
1. Please ask Victor to elaborate on how my theological understanding is
wholly wide of the mark. Such a statement does not convey to us any
greater
understanding of the issues here. What is repentance? I suspect this man
Victor and I define it differently. He probably views repentance as
simply
being a life that is constantly humble and devoted to God. I would ask
him
to explain James 4:8-10 as something other than repentance.
Check out the following link, which is an article that I think comes from
the fruit of this "theology" you had quoted:
http://www.greentreewebster.org/Articles/All%20of%20Life%20is%20Repentance.pdf
This article to me is like puke. There is no understanding of the value
of
the kind of repentance described in James 4. The Anabaptists didn't have
it
all wrong and Luther was wrong to think them to be fanatics.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
----- Original Message -----
From: Victor Shepherd
To: Lance Muir
Sent: February 21, 2006 09:44
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
First, who is David Miller? His theological understanding is wholly wide
of
the mark.
Two, Debbie is a surer guide.
Victor
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 21, 2006 9:34 AM
To: Victor Shepherd
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
Victor:
Please read on through to Debbie's comments. Would you offer up a couple
of
thoughts?
Lance
----- Original Message -----
From: David Miller
To: [email protected]
Sent: February 21, 2006 09:29
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
I think Martin Luther and many of the reformers were wrong in their
concept
of sin and repentance. This was the cultural mindset then, that the
depravity of man was so great that nothing could be done about it. Their
thinking was that everybody sins even when they are unaware of it. This
actually was good business for them, given the position of the church in
relation to the people. They practiced confession to priests and even the
selling of indulgences. While Luther saw the evil in the selling of
indulgences, his culture hindered him from understanding the greatness of
the righteousness that Jesus imputes to those who believe. You have to
understand that perceiving that we are justified by faith was a huge
revelation for him in itself. If that concept was a big deal to him, how
could he possibly understand all the benefits that come with faith, such
as
the prophetic gift, miracles, healing, and sanctification?
One of the greatest hindrances to sanctification is the knowledge that we
are sinners. It is the knowledge of sin, the consciousness of being in
sin,
that paralyzes a person. Such a person has no boldness to stand before
God,
much less enter the throne room of heaven. He can do nothing but be in a
mournful state of repentance. James teaches repentance, however, as being
a
process with an end. What does he say? "He [the Lord] shall lift you up"
(James 4:10). If we really were suppose to be in a constant state of
repentance, this last phrase has no meaning. Is such were so, we should
then all be sad, mourning, without joy. No, I'm sorry, but this is not
the
purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ, to keep us in a state of perpetual
repentance. Rather, his purpose is to clear our conscience of all guilt,
so
that we feel as if we have never sinned, and can say like Paul, "receive
us;
we have wronged no man." His purpose is to give us a heart of joy, that
we
might walk in a state of righteousness, peace and joy, knowing that we
have
been delivered and cleansed of all sin. To think otherwise is the
manifestation of doubt and unbelief.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:25 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: repentance & sin and everything
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: February 20, 2006 22:43
Subject: repentance & sin and everything
I came across this section on the first of Luther's 95 theses and thought
of
the sinless perfection discussion:
We commit the same error nowadays, with the superficial difference that we
have changed penance into a psychological or emotional work of
self-purgation. Luther insisted that although repentance is something we
will for ourselves, we can do so only because God has first willed it for
us
and in us. Moreover, it is to be lifelong and “lifewide”, inasmuch as sin
is
lifelong and lifewide; repentance is not an atomistic act we perform to
compensate for an atomistic sin. Even in our hearts as believers there is
a
residual depravity so deep that we cannot see it. We have an inkling as to
when and how we have sinned, but it is only an inkling. In fact, our whole
existence is tinged with this residual sinfulness, hence our whole
existence
must be repentant.
Luther’s view contrasted not only with the Roman understanding, but also
with that of the Anabaptists, the radicals of the Reformation. According
to
the Anabaptists, unbelievers needed to repent, certainly, but not
believers,
because to become a believer was ipso facto to be wholly sanctified. To be
a
Christian meant you were perfect and sinless. Both the Roman and the
Anabaptist, according to Luther, had a shallow and inadequate view of sin,
and both needed to know repentance as a lifelong exercise in grace.
Luther was an Old Testament scholar first of all, and repentance in the
Old
Testament always has the sense of a 180-degree turn. The Hebrew Bible uses
three major images of repentance. One is the unfaithful wife returning to
her husband: having disgraced herself and violated her husband, she
returns
to longstanding love, patience, and acceptance. The second is the idolater
turning from the worship of idols to the worship of the true and living
God.
On the one hand, idols are nothing—the Hebrew word for them is literally
“the nothings”—but on the other hand they have great power, just as a
vacuum
has power to suck everything into it and a false rumour has the power to
destroy a person. The idolater who repents turns from nothing to
something,
from unreality to the reality that is the Holy One of Israel. And in the
third image of repentance, rebellious subjects return to their rightful
ruler. They have brought chaos upon themselves and the wider world, and as
they turn back to proper authority, the chaos within and around them is
dispelled.
Luther was familiar with all of these images. In saying that Jesus willed
the entire life of believers to be one of repentance, he was acknowledging
repentance as reorientation to the love and service of Jesus Christ, as
that
resetting of the compass we must will for ourselves every single morning
when our feet hit the cold floor. Without it, we blunder farther down the
wrong road every day.
Earlier this evening I was thinking of sins of omission, and also of the
whole web of corporate, systemic sin in which we exist and are complicit.
The other night after watching Constant Gardener we talked about this
too--about how a "garden" can be our refuge from knowing about the evil in
which we're enmeshed, because knowing produces a responsibility we almost
cannot bear and cannot adequately discharge. How can we deny that we share
in this corporate responsibility, and does that not also count as sin?
And that's apart from our very subtle rationalizations of personal,
individual sin. To what degree is our will involved in that? Unconscious
is
not the same as involuntary. This thought was raised by something from CSL
on the Narnian this aft, about the small act committed between one swallow
of beer and the next, the smile or word whereby we seek admission into the
circle and close the door behind us, silencing the qualm. Then my thought
went to what JD has been saying about God's complete freedom, similar to
what TFT said about Christ's complete integrity, as compared to our lack
thereof. Until our total selves are restored we do not have that freedom
and
integrity. We live, though, knowing we are headed there, anticipating it
even as he begins to grow it in us, and that is a source of tension.
It reminded me of a conversation I had with Cas tonight. Apparently one of
his teachers admitted to wondering sometimes if everything he believes is
false. We talked about how certainty is simply not within the grasp of
humans in any belief system, and that for us who have put confidence in
Jesus Christ, the moment of recognizing that we do not know might as well
be
a lifetime. Our whole life, our whole self is in that moment--every
time--and we can respond in terror and despair or in trust. Similarly--I
find this hard to articulate--our whole life and self are there in the
instant of sinning; it might as well be a lifetime, ontologically. There
is
no point saying we are only a little bit sinful, even if we are David and
sin only every third or fourth day. But we need not respond in despair and
defeat. The alternative to a claim of sinlessness is not defeatism.
Is that intelligible?
D
From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:55 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Re: quasi-adventure
OK then, I've got season 2 and, the Pledge.
L
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: February 19, 2006 17:02
Subject: RE: quasi-adventure
What?? What are you saying? Don't trifle with my feelings!
D
From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:46 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Re: quasi-adventure
MI-5 vol 2???????????? See it? Not see it? Keep watching this site for
further updates.
Lance
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: February 19, 2006 12:33
Subject: quasi-adventure
In the last kilometre or so of our trip to the MH, the van began making a
hideous noise whenever we turned, which Jan said was the steering going at
last. So rather than risk driving back with it, he called a tow truck near
the end of the service, and when it was over he stayed with the van while
the rest of us had to come home by cab. (I'm not sure whether our Canadian
Tire Gold Card, which covers towing over enormous distances, covers the
cab,
but I hope so!) We know two other Georgetown parties who go to the
Oakville
MH, but neither was there today, unfortunately.
Little thing--we were standing in the lobby watching all the people come
out
and looking for our friend in order to ask for a ride, when Jan decided to
locate him by calling on his cell phone. Turned out he was out in the
Beaches in Toronto. The funny thing was, while Jan was talking on the
phone
his eyes continued to search the crowd of exiting & milling MH-goers, till
finally he said into the phone, "What am I doing, I'm still looking for
you
here even though you've told me you're in Toronto! I guess I can stop
looking now!" It seemed to me to be a parable for something...
D
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
